Obedience Flashcards Preview

Psychology > Obedience > Flashcards

Flashcards in Obedience Deck (36):
1

Obedience

Complying with they demands of an authority figure

2

Milgrams behaviour study (1963) procedure

40 participants
All were told it was a study of how punishment affects learning
Participants were The teacher
Experimenter was the learner
Learner had to answer questions, if wrong got electrocuted by the learner (started on 15V then went up to 450V)

3

Findings

65% went to full shock levels
all participants went to 300volts
13% learners stopped at 300V

4

Conclusions

Situational variables contribute to obedience
Obedience to authority occurs even if it goes against your morels and causes distress

5

Situational factors

Proximity
Location
Uniforms
Presence of allies (unanimity)

6

Proximity

Teacher and learner seated in same room - went from 65% down to 40% full shock level
Touch proximity - went down further to 30% full shock level
Proximity of experimenter- 21% full shock level
Participants lied to experimenter saying they gave a higher shock when actually it was a low shock level

7

Location

Interview afterwards - participants said they wouldn’t have given a shock if the study had been else where
Moved to Bridgeport - obedience rate went from 65% down to 48%

8

Uniform

Bushman - female researcher dressed in police asked people to give for change to a male researcher for a parking ticket - 72% of people obeyed
Business executive - 48% obeyed
Begged - 52% obeyed

9

Presence of allies

2 other teachers in room refused to carry on - obedience rate dropped to only 10% of people continuing to maximum shock level

10

Strengths

Manipulated variables
Paradigm

11

Weaknesses

Practical applications - hoped to reduce destruction but hasn’t been successful
Problems with generalising Milgram’s conclusions to the Holocaust - other factors such as threat to individual safety may also have affected obedience

12

Ethical issues

No psychological harm - only 2% regretted applying, 74% learnt from it
Caused psychological harm - showed signs of stress, some had seizures

13

Deception

Was necessary for realistic behaviour, needed to believe shocks were real otherwise they would just carry on doing it

There was deception- didn’t tell the, the actual aim, no fully conformed concert- told about electrical shock after agreeing

14

Right to withdraw

If participants were asked to stop they were told they had to continue

15

Participants were paid to take part

They felt obliged to carry on

16

Validity issues

75% participants believed shock was real - makes it valid
Participants who thought it was real shocked to a level voltage

17

Cultural or historical validity

Obedience rates have changed in 50 years, despite cultural change
American culture- Vietnam war was a concern at the time of milgrams study

Australia - obedience rate at 28%
Spain - obedience rate at 90%

18

Real life scenarios

Hofling et al (1966) - 22 nurses asked to give wrong dose of unknown drug by a senior doctor 21 obeyed even though it went against hospital rules - SUPPORTS MILGRAMS

Rank - gave nurses a familiar drug- only 2 of the 18 obeyed - shows that external validity didn’t occur in this experiment or milgrams

19

Explanation for obedience in milgrams study

Gradual commitment - shocks were gradually increasing, becomes easier as lower shock had been given
Role of buffers - more distance between teacher and learner, the more likelihood of obedience
Justifying obedience - blaming others ‘I was only told to do it’

20

Explanation for obedience

Agentic state
Legitimacy of authority
Authoritarian personality

21

Explanations for obedience

Agentic shift
Legitimacy of authority
Authoritarian personality

22

Dispositional explanation

Belief that behaviour is caused by internal characteristics of an individual

23

Situational explanation

Belief that behaviour is caused by external, factors in the environment or situation

24

Agentic shift

The shift from autonomous state to agentic state

Autonomous state - individual sees themselves as responsible for their own actions

Agentic state - individual sees their actions not their control

25

Why do people go through agentic shift?

Remain self image - remain a positive self image, when shifted, their actions are no longer up to them, and so if wrong, doesn’t affect their own self image

Binding factors - doesn’t want to appear rude or contradictory

26

Evidence for agentic shift

Milgrams interview after shock experiment

People claimed they ‘just did as they were told’ - suggests they have shifted to the agentic state where they don’t believe their actions is their fault or responsibility

27

Evaluation of agentic state

Fqennis - obedience may also extend to other forms of social influence

The reason for agentic state is due to people’s experience of personal control
Lab experiment - showed a reduction in personal control lead to greater obedience

28

Fennis - evaluation of agentic state

Fennis- obedience may also extend to other forms of social influence

The reason for agentic state is due to people’s experience of personal control
Lab experiment - showed a reduction in personal control lead to greater obedience

29

Staub- evaluation of agentic state

Not agentic state but experience of carrying out acts of evil over a long time that changes the way in which individuals think and believe

30

Lifton- evaluation of agentic state

German doctors - changed from medical professionals concerned only of the welfare of their patients

Went into being capable of carrying out bike and lethal experiments on helpless prisoners

31

Legitimacy of authority

Obeying someone who is percieved to be in a position of control within a situation

32

Milgrams explanation for legitimacy of authority

Participants went into the lab expecting someone to be in charge
Teacher - participants obey teacher when they ask to stop but get told they must continue

33

Supporting legitimacy of authority

Tannow- studied data from us national transport safety - looked at black boxes from plane crahses
Found excessive dependence on the captains authority and expertise

34

Authoritarian personality

Person who holds rigid beliefs, including in absolute obedience
Higher authoritarian personality, the mor you will obey

35

Who suggested an authoritarian personality?

Adorno - people who have a high F score tended to be raised by parents who used an authoritarian parenting style - they expected children to obey to either them or an authoritarian person

36

Milgram and authoritarian personalities

Elm and milgram - used same people - top 20 people who went to highest shock level, and 20 who stopped at a low shock level
These 40 completed the MMPI scale

Found - people who went higher scored highly on the scale
People who went low scored low on the scale

Suggested obedience rates increased the more of an authoritarian personality you have